Hughes v City of New York

2024 NY Slip Op 31347(U)

April 17, 2024

Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: Index No. 159747/2020

Judge: Arlene P. Bluth

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official

publication.
159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001

Page 1 of 4

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 1 -4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 

11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

were read on this motion to/for Article 78 .

The petition to reinstate petitioner to her position as a caseworker for respondent New 

York City Department of Social Services/Human Resources Administration, Department of 

Homeless Services is denied. 

Background

Petitioner insists she worked for the Department of Homeless Services (“DHS”)2as a 

caseworker starting in May 2019. She was assigned to a shelter facility in Brooklyn. Petitioner 

claims that she told her supervisors that she had no experience doing casework in a shelter and so 

she would need training in order to do her job. Petitioner maintains that despite this plea, she 

never received any training and so it was difficult to meet her job responsibilities. Petitioner 

1 The Court is well aware that this proceeding has been pending for years. Although it was only reassigned to the 

undersigned this week, the Court profusely apologizes, on behalf of the Court system, for the long delay in the 

resolution of this proceeding. 

2 DHS is an administrative unit within the Department of Social Services. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ARLENE P. BLUTH PART 14

Justice 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 159747/2020

 MOTION DATE N/A1

 MOTION SEQ. NO. 001

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION

NAZZARI HUGHES,

 

 

Petitioner,

- v -

CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN RESOURCES

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELESS

SERVICES

Respondents.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

1 of 4 [* 1]
159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001

Page 2 of 4

acknowledges that she received an unsatisfactory performance rating in April 2020 and that her 

supervisor refused to meet with her about this evaluation. She alleges that she was a permanent 

employee at DHS and that she completed her one-year probationary period. 

In opposition, respondents contend that petitioner never achieved permanent status and, 

instead, was still a probationary employee. They observe that petitioner’s probationary period 

was extended to September 2, 2020 and she was terminated on that day. Respondents detail the 

extensions of petitioner’s probationary period, which included annual and sick leave as well as 

an agreement between petitioner’s union and respondents relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

This agreement included an extension of three months and 17 days to the probationary periods of 

eligible employees. 

Respondents maintain that they had a good faith reason to fire petitioner—her poor 

performance review. They point out that she received unsatisfactory ratings for both the August 

through November 2019 time period as well as the November 2019 through February 2020

evaluation period. Respondents claim that petitioner’s supervisor then recommended her 

termination, after which respondents began an investigation into petitioner’s performance. 

Respondents then decided to terminate petitioner’s employment. 

Petitioner explains in reply that she was not provided with due process procedures under 

Section 75 of New York’s Civil Service Law. She insists that DHS knew she had no prior 

experience performing the duties of a caseworker and that she was treated unfairly by her 

supervisors. Petitioner claims that the agreement between her union and the city did not affect 

her right to seek protection under the Civil Service Law. She argues that although her 

probationary period was extended, that did not change the fact that she completed a year of 

service. 

INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

2 of 4 [* 2]
159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001

Page 3 of 4

Petitioner also submits a reply affidavit in which she insists that her supervisors created a 

hostile work environment and harassed her. She contends that these supervisors did not make 

any effort to help her and instead just offered criticism. 

Discussion

The central question in this proceeding is whether or not petitioner was a probationary 

employee. Respondents included an agreement that provided, in pertinent part, that:

“The probationary period for all employees who were in their probationary period 

(including competitive, non-competitive, and Labor class employees) shall be 

tolled during this period. Therefore, any employee who was in their probationary 

period as of March 13, 2020, will have their probationary period automatically 

extended by 3 months and 17 days. Performance evaluations for probationary 

employees shall be held in abeyance during this period, and probationary 

employees will not be issued evaluations from the date of this side letter through 

June 30, 2020” (NYSCEF Doc. No. 16). 

A plain reading of this agreement provision supports respondents’ position that petitioner 

was still a probationary employee on the day she was terminated. Petitioner does not directly 

dispute that she was still, technically, a probationary employee. Instead, she appears to argue 

that even though she was still on probation, she was nevertheless entitled to the protections of 

Civil Service Law § 75 because she had worked for a year. Put another way, petitioner seems to 

suggest that she met the criteria for certain process protections under the Civil Service Law by 

working for a year even though she remained a probationary employee. 

The Court disagrees with petitioner’s interpretation of this extension. She did not cite 

any caselaw for the proposition that an extension of a probationary period does not 

simultaneously delay the right to protections under the Civil Service Law (such as a hearing). In 

fact, courts have often concluded that employees are not entitled to hearings under the Civil 

Service Law where their probationary periods have been extended (e.g., Tomlinson v Ward, 110 

AD2d 537, 538, 487 NYS2d 779 [1st Dept 1985] [rejecting a claim for a hearing under the Civil 

INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

3 of 4 [* 3]
159747/2020 HUGHES, NAZZARI vs. CITY OF NEW YORK

Motion No. 001

Page 4 of 4

Service Law on the ground that petitioner remained a probationary employee]). Simply put, 

because petitioner was a probationary employee at the time she was terminated, this Court must 

evaluate her termination under that standard.

“A probationary employee may be discharged without a hearing and without a statement 

of reasons in the absence of any demonstration that the dismissal was for a constitutionally 

impermissible purpose or in violation of statutory or decisional law” (Thomas v City of New 

York, 169 AD2d 496, 497-98, 169 AD2d 496 [1st Dept 1991]). Here, there is no basis to find that 

petitioner was fired in bad faith. Petitioner readily admits that she received underwhelming 

performance reviews; this constitutes a permissible basis to end petitioner’s employment as a 

probationary employee. That she blames DHS for not properly training her is not a basis to find 

that her termination was improper. 

Accordingly, it is hereby

ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and this proceeding is dismissed without costs or 

disbursements. 

4/17/2024 $SIG$

DATE ARLENE P. BLUTH, J.S.C.

CHECK ONE: X CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

INDEX NO. 159747/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 29 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/17/2024

4 of 4

□ 

□ 

[* 4]